摘要：
举世瞩目的WTO“稀土案”于2014年8月7日终落帷幕.同先前的“原料案”一样,中国还是难逃败诉的命运.上诉机构支持申诉方的大部分指控,再次否决了《1994年关税与贸易总协定》(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1994,以下简称GATT)第20条对中国《入世议定书》的可适用性,从而确认中国对稀土、钨、钼三种原材料采取的出口税及配额等管制措施违背了WFO相关规则和入世所作的特殊承诺.作为自然资源的进出口大国,在自然资源贸易纠纷(特别是出口管制问题)不断“升温”和WTO争端解决机制运用愈来愈频繁的今天,中国应认真总结和反思这场“稀土保卫战”失利带来的经验教训,以从源头上破解中国出口管制措施在WTO体制下遭遇的法律困境,避免今后类似案件败诉的重现.基于此,本文综合应用案例分析、文本分析、历史分析和比较分析等方法对“稀土案”争讼的焦点和争端解决机构(DSB)的裁决意见做了详尽的透析,结果发现此案中DSB的审理不同程度存在着解释僵化、无视中国缔约真意及主观随意、前后矛盾等失范之处,对中国颇为不公.不过,该案也从另外一方面暴露出中国出口管制立法的疏漏与实施缺陷.是故,本文建议中国:①请求部长级会议/总理事会对GATT与《入世议定书》关系做出统一解释,并单独将出口税承诺纳入减让表;②重视DSB既有的裁决思路,根据WTO规则修改相关出口管制法规;③加强资源开采的法律管控,提高资源税的征收标准;④确保对内外资源需求企业的管制一致,优化出口许可管理,努力从wTO法和国内法两个层面推动现行自然资源出口秩序的完善,使中国今后对自然资源的出口管制既能符合WTO规则又能达致确保本国经济可持续性发展之目的.%The case,China-Rare Earths under WTO,which attracted worldwide attentions,finally came to an end on August 7,2014.China lost the case again like it did in China-Raw Materials Case.The Reports of the Appellate Body supported most of the complainants' complaints.The Appellate Body once again refused the availability of Article XX of the GATT1994 to China's Accession Protocol;hereby the Appellate Body confirmed that China's imposition of export duty and export quotas on rare earths,Tungsten and Molybdenum violates the relevant WTO rules and its promises in Accession Protocol.As a resources import & export nation,China should summerize and introspect the frustrated lessons of the war of defending Chinese rare earths,which are beneficial to eliminate the dilemmas of export-control measures encountered under WTO and avoid the reappearance of such lost cases,during the present epoch in which natural resources trade disputes (especially the export control issues) constantly arise and the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is becoming more and more popular.Based on this argument,the article probes into the contentious issues of China-Rare Earths case and the rulings of the DSB with case study,text analysis,historical analysis and comparative analysis,which finds that there are some problems in the trial,such as rigid interpretation,ignoring the intention of China's contraction,arbitrariness and contradictions.Meanwhile,the case also indicates the omissions and drawbacks in China's export control legislation.Consequently,the article suggests that China should,firstly,ask the ministerial conference or the General Council for unified interpretation of GATT and China's Accession Protocol,incorporating the export duty commitments into the schedule of concessions;secondly,attach importance to the existing ruling intention of DSB,and modify the export control legislation according to WTO rules;thirdly,strengthen legal control of resources exploitation,and increase the standard of resource tax collection;the last but not least,ensure the unified regulation of the domestic and foreign resources-demanding enterprises,optimizing the export license administration,making efforts to consummate the regulation of natural resources exportation from the two aspects of WTO law and domestic laws,and enable the natural resources export control of China not only meets the rules of WTO,but also could insure the sustainable development of domestic economy.
